Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. Court held respondent must follow due legal process to claim land or interfere with possession rather than via extra-judicial acts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 11118 of 2008
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ petition was filed seeking direction to the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners in respect of petitioners property admeasuring Ac.1-20 gts, covered by premises bearing Nos.30-72, 3076, 30-77, 30-88 and 30-89 of Survey Nos.61, 62, 63/1, 64/1 and 67, situated at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.
3. It appears that the petitioners made an application to the Malkajgiri municipality on 01.02.2008 for construction of compound wall to protect the above property, and the Malkajgiri municipality through proceedings dated 04.02.2008 informed the petitioners that the lands in Survey Nos.61, 62, 63/1 fall under Full Tank Level (FTL) area of Banda Cheruvu, and no permission can be granted.
4. It is the case of petitioners that on 21.05.2008, some staff claiming to be from respondent office were found taking measurements in the said land. Challenging the interference of respondents, the present writ petition was filed.
5. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating as follows:
“In reply to the averments made in paras 4 of the affidavit it is submitted that as per the master plan approved by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh to Moulali zone the land use of the Sy.Nos. of Malkajgiri village is as follows:
1. Sy.No.61 – Partly Water Body, Partly Open Space Minor part for residential zone.
2. Sy.No.62 – Partly Water Body, Partly Open Space Partly residential zone & 30 ft wide proposed master plan road.
3. Sy.No.63 – Partly residential zone, Partly Open Space 30 ft. wide proposed master plan road.
It is submitted that as per Rule 5 of Hyderabad revised building Rules, 2006 no building / development activity shall be allowed in the bed of water bodies like river, or nala, and in the full tank level of any lake, pond, cheruvu, or kunta / shikam lands. In
view of the said rule no permission can be granted to construct a compound wall / building on the lands specified in Rule 5 of the said Rules. It is submitted that the lands in question are falling within the jurisdiction of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). Therefore, the GHMC is competent and empowered to consider the applications for construction of compound wall or buildings. It is submitted that the allegation that on 21.04.2008 some staff of the respondent were found measuring the above land is vague and not correct and denied. The revenue, GHMC and Irrigation authorities will protect the water bodies. In the absence of the details regarding the details of the officials of the answering respondent, the answering respondent is not in a position to traverse the said averments. If at all the answering respondent is interested in the property of the petitioner it will do so only by following the due procedure of the Law.”
6. Recording the statement of respondent, that the respondent would follow due process of law if it wants to claim any part of the land of the petitioners or interfere with the petitioners possession, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
17th December, 2014 KSM
Petitioners
Respondent
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
